Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy Connection Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate whether to require developers to join water districts, emphasize reuse and conservation
Summary
Douglas County commissioners and staff debated whether policy should require developments adjacent to existing water providers to connect and discussed reuse, conservation and legal trade-offs; staff cautioned against absolute mandates and highlighted reuse and interconnection as tools to reduce groundwater reliance.
Commissioners at the Douglas County Water Commission meeting weighed policy approaches to reduce groundwater dependence and encourage renewable supplies and reuse. Several members asked whether the county could require developers adjacent to a provider to connect to that provider; staff and commissioners cautioned that mandatory, absolute policies risk legal challenges and can produce unintended consequences.
Commissioners and staff stressed that when developers cannot—or choose not—to attach to a district moving toward renewable supplies, the county risks continued reliance on increased groundwater extraction. A staff presentation and member comments emphasized that connecting developments to existing central water and sewer systems also advances indirect potable reuse and supports long‑term sustainability.
Participants discussed practical tradeoffs: an absolute policy to force connections could require developers to accept a district’s fees and rules and invited exceptions that could undermine the policy. Staff urged policies that avoid inflexible "thou shalt" language and instead create incentives, appeals processes and narrowly tailored exceptions so legitimate cases can proceed without stifling policy goals.
Commissioners highlighted reuse as a key lever. Members pointed to county examples—Parker, Castle Rock and Centennial—where non‑indirect potable reuse or reuse planning has been used to stretch supplies. Staff noted the county can use land‑use policies to encourage connection to sewer and water infrastructure so reuse remains available to new development, while recognizing water providers are the primary implementers of reuse projects.
The discussion also covered drought‑response practices and variability among providers: some districts have staged watering restrictions and enforcement mechanisms, while others have limited or no formal drought restrictions. Commissioners directed staff to consider these practical differences when drafting policy recommendations.
Staff invited the commission to provide policy recommendations at the next meeting and to use the upcoming focus groups (developers, well users, water providers) as venues to vet policy options before consultants incorporate feedback into subsequent drafts of the water plan.
